Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 21STCV14785, Date: 2022-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV14785    Hearing Date: August 9, 2022    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 9, 2022

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Pitchess Motions

Moving Party: Plaintiff Anthony Saravia

Responding Party: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

T/R:     PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IS GRANTED IN PART.

THE COURT WILL SET A DATE AT THE HEARING FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. 

            PLAINTIFF TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

            The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

“A party seeking discovery of a peace officer's personnel records must follow a two-step process.  First, the party must file a written motion describing the type of records sought, supported by ‘[a]ffidavits showing good cause for the discovery. . ., setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.’  [Cal. Evid. Code § 1043(b)(3).]  This initial burden is a ‘relatively relaxed standard [ ].’  Information is material if it ‘“will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.”’  ‘[A] declaration by counsel on information and belief is sufficient to state facts to satisfy the “materiality” component of that section.’”  (Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1085–1086 [citations omitted].)

“Second, if ‘the trial court concludes the defendant has fulfilled these prerequisites and made a showing of good cause, the custodian of records should bring to court all documents “potentially relevant” to the defendant's motion. . . .  The trial court “shall examine the information in chambers” [Cal. Evid. Code § 1045(b).], “out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized [to possess the records] and such other persons [the custodian of records] is willing to have present.”. . . Subject to statutory exceptions and limitations. . . the trial court should then disclose to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.”’”  (Haggerty, supra at 1086.)

            Plaintiff seeks disclosure of the personnel files of Deputies Andrew De La Rosa and Alex Guerra, including documents pertaining to disciplinary action, promotion and demotion, and investigations of dishonesty or excessive force. Plaintiff alleges that Deputies De La Rosa and Guerra jumped Plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, beat him and arrested him. This is good cause for discovery of the deputies’ personnel records concerning discipline, alleged dishonesty, and alleged use of force. The requests for other records concerning promotion and demotion, and for other documents contained in the personnel files, are overbroad and not material to this case.  

            Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART.